Transcript Project development for Structural Funds

Evolution
of the Czech Regional Policy
in the Context of the EU Regional Policy
RNDr. Jan Vozáb, PhD
external lecturer, Charles University, Prague
consultant, partner Berman Group
© 2007. Berman Group.
Background for Czech
regional policy evolution
• Character of regional differences
– Prague vs. Rest of the country
– West-East gradient
– Micro-regional vs. mezo-regional differences
• Structures for Czech regional policy
– State interventions vs. local and later regional
interventions
– Strong sectoral ministries but weak ministry for regional
development -> weak formal/official regional policy
– Limited (or lack of) co-operation, networking and
partnership, both, horizontally and vertically
© 2007. Berman Group.
Evolution stages of the Czech regional policy
and main influences forming it
First
half
of 90s
Second
half of 90s
New
Pre-accession EU accession
programming
2000-04
2004-06
2007-13
Towards
integration
Two parallel
systems
Creation of regional governments, devolution
EU accession – Chapter 21, acquis
Moderate regional policy
Phare instrument and pre-accesion funds
Economic transition
© 2007. Berman Group.
Development of the Czech RP until 1996
• Moderate regional disparities emerging at
microregional/local level mostly
• Pro-claimed economic liberalism
– very narrow official/explicit regional policy
– no programming/strategic documents
– very limited supporting mechanisms aimed at SMEs support
on a project basis
• Sectoral and fiscal policy instruments much larger than
RP, with unintentional and unconceived regional impacts
• No influence of EU RP: Phare instrument focused on
transition issues and mostly institutional building
© 2007. Berman Group.
Regional policy in the second half of 90s
• Increasing unemployment (3.5% -> 9%), growing regional
disparities both, at NUTS III as well as at local level
• Moderate regional policy of the new government
– first programming documents at national and regional levels
– more and stronger delivery agencies
– The Act on Regional Development, Government Principles
of RP
• Non-regional policy instruments prevail, partly intentional
regional impacts (SMEs support, labour market policy)
• Modest preparation for EU ESC policy started
– separated Phare and CZ policies, Phare project based, very
limited support in the field of EU ESC policy
– first („training“) operational programmes (e.g. ROPs) –
usually no or very modest implementation
© 2007. Berman Group.
Czech regional policy
prior EU accession: 2000-2004
• High unemployment remains with regional differences,
economy grows, regional disparities continue to grow
• Pre-accession instruments support
– direct aim at EU ESC policy adjustment – but still project
based
– pilot SF like „programmes“ implemented at small scale at
local level
• National preparing for EU ESC policy
–
–
–
–
programming (two rounds) as well as project preparation
new implementing structures built – parallel to existing ones
twinning – no particular effects
NUTS II level created
• Former national/regional policies continue unchanged
• Public administration reform
© 2007. Berman Group.
Differences between pre-accession
instruments and Structural Funds
Pre-accession instr.
• International aid – Centralised, EC
responsibility
– Spending technically based
• Accession oriented =>IB
projects important
• Limited financial resources
• Many projects not
supported
• Larger projects prefered
• Support „out-of-system“
• Selection of projects
similar to public
procurements
© 2007. Berman Group.
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
• Support to national policies
• Decentralised, member state
responsibility
• Spending based on programming
• ESC oriented => Economic
development objectives
• Larger financial resources
• Absorption capacity threat
• Small projects are usual
• SF co-finances regular
national programs
• „First come first serve“ project
selection possible
Czech regional policy after EU accession
2004-2006: two parallel systems
• EU ESC policy and programmes parallel to the Czech ones
– parallel programmes and other documents
– new implementing bodies – eg. Reg. Councils, Secretariats
– new dept. of existing ones – eg. CzechInvest, Regional Labour
Offices,
– parallel delivery mechanisms – based on demand of high number of
small local and regional stake-holders
– parallel financial flows, too much match funding for end users
• Former Czech RP and national „programmes“ continue
unchanged, sometimes competitive to EU Funds´ programmes
• New interventions introduced by ESC policy
– more development and target oriented (incl. indicators)
– new fields (e.g. innovations, life-long learning)
– new roles of programme management structures – MAs, IBs,
• Serious absorption capacity problems
© 2007. Berman Group.
Comparison of EU ESC policy and
Czech national policies interventions
Supply driven projects
Top down
In-system
Out-of-system
Bottom-up
Demand driven projects
© 2007. Berman Group.
Czech regional policy in the new
programming period 2007-2013
• Continuous economic growth, decreased unemployment
• Large EU funds indicative allocation for the Czech Republic
• ESC policy becomes the core of the Czech RP, aimed
particularly at
– Innovations, research & development, HR adaptation, Adjustment to
EU environmental standards (accession requirements),
transportation infrastructue, interventions from regional level (ROPs)
• Merging national and EU programmes
– Former national interventions in the field of ESC policy mostly (not
fully) integrated into SF programmes
– SF implementation structures partly adapted, many new created
due to new programmes -> likely difficulties in co-ordination
– Financial flows for SF programmes/projects partly streamlined
• Big threat of insufficient SF absorption, delays in SF implementation
© 2007. Berman Group.
CZ regional policy vs. EU regional policy
development
concept
EU ESC
policy
Czech RP
in 90s
welfare
concept
re-active policy
© 2007. Berman Group.
pro-active policy
Conclusion: New policy paradigm partially
accepted but old institutions prevail
• New interventions – more Lisbon or a development nature,
BUT
– old delivery mechanisms to continue
– wide and non-targeted intervention focus still planned
• Merging national programmes into SF programmes, BUT
– excessive fragmentation continues: 24 OPs, 15 MAs
– attempts to „hide“ non-ESC policy interventions into SF OPs
– redistribution nature of SF OPs – real implementation at the
lowest possible level
• Financial flows streamlined for SF implementation BUT old
legislation and bureaucratic structures
– high administrative burden at the level of MAs and IBs
– complicated project management for FBs and end users
© 2007. Berman Group.